The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① The method by which the Defendant was guilty, and the criminal conduct before and after the commission of the crime, etc. were sufficiently aware that the Defendant was responsible for part of the instant Bosing crime at the time of the crime.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, stated in the prosecutor’s office that his act may be related to licensing, and that (3) the Defendant was authorized to act independently without attaching a separate surveillance liability; and (4) the Defendant’s mobile phone at the time of arrest was discovered access media and identification cards; and (4) the Defendant was actually used for the crime of Bosing, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, despite the fact-finding, even though it was sufficiently convicted of the charge of the instant case, there were errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is Chinese nationality, and from October 2013, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea as a short-term and ordinary visa, and thereafter, from April 2014 to June 2014, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea as a visiting visa and continued to depart from China, and there is no certain occupation.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant received a proposal from C (C, 1984 birth or 1985 birth) who is working as a member of a telephone financial crime organization in China, to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the money for the transfer of money to the account designated in accordance with internal instructions,” and accepted it to punish living expenses, etc.

Accordingly, an employee in charge of telephone financial crimes in the name of the above C, etc., plays a role of inducing a large number of unspecified victims to make a telephone call, demanding money from the victim by making a false speech or intimidation, and an employee in charge of telephone financial crimes in another name, who receives money from the victim, and the defendant.